Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Clone Oldest Living Organism
goran72 sends along the story of the world's oldest living organism, a shrub that grows in Tasmania and reproduces only by cloning. Tasmanian scientists have cloned Lomatia tasmanica as part of a battle to save it from a deadly fungus. From the RTBG's press release (which seems to load slowly in the US):"The Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens [RTBG] is working towards securing the future of a rare and ancient Tasmanian native plant... Lomatia tasmanica, commonly known as King's Lomatia, is critically endangered with less than 500 plants growing in the wild in a tiny pocket of Tasmania's isolated south west. The RTBG has been propagating the plant from cuttings since 1994... 'Fossil leaves of the plant found in the south west were dated at 43,600 years old and given that the species is a clone, it is possibly the oldest living plant in the world,' [Botanist Natalie Tapson] said."
So can we have our Dodo bird back?
If this site is "news for nerds", you'd think that nerds would understand what cloning was, and that cloning plants isn't some nefarious activity.
or the skeptic scientists.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
First, of course, what exactly constitutes a single "organism" is a bit controversial, especially with plants, and especially with clonal colonies. But even if you accept clonal colonies as bona-fide organisms, Pando in Utah may or may not be older than Lomatia tasmanica , depending on which age estimates you believe.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It MAY be the oldest living leafy plant species but mosses and the horseshoe crab and many isopods are much much older and are complex organisms. There are bacteria (these are organisms too) that are millions of years older than this plant.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Cloning Strom Thurmond's nose.
As a horticulturalist who's worked on tissue culture projects...
1- tissue culture is growing a piece of plant of a medium (usually agar with nutrients) through various stages
2- there is no universal formula and different plants need different nutrient and environmental mixes to go through each stage
3- you're trying to get this piece of plant to create a root and shoot system
4- it requires many different steps and setups/transplants to walk a piece of plant material through the stages to where you can actually put a piece of rooted material into the ground and know it will make a plant
5- you'd be amazed how picky (or impossible...so far) it is to coax a chunk of plant tissue into creating a whole new plant out of it's cells
Since when were clones of something considered to be the same organism. I better tell my friend who has an identical twin that she is technically the same person as her sister.
Did you read the article the thing is being threated by a fungus not native to its habitat. In other words its something MAN brought to it, that is killing it.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I agree, keeping old organisms alive will just dumb us down. On the other hand, if we kill everything off, we'll be all the smarter! Genius.
Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
So they cloned a plant that has hitherto successfully cloned itself for a thousands years without any help?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_long-living_organisms
Did you read the article the thing is being threated by a fungus not native to its habitat. In other words its something MAN brought to it, that is killing it.
Why do you automatically come to the conclusion that anything MAN does is somehow "not native"? Are humans native to this planet or not?
Why do you presume that humanity's actions are somehow "less natural" than the actions of other species?
So we could have dodo-egg-flavored dog and cat food? Their meat tasted like ass and was somewhat less edible.
I'd rather have brought back a species whose extinction humans attributed to through over-hunting.
Like mammoth. I imagine they should be rather tasty.
Mmmmm... Mammoth ribs...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
it is worth noting that in horticulture 'cloning' is simply the technical name for the process of propagating a plant through the use of cuttings.
you need no lab to do it - just simply a pair of scissors (or a scalpel), some rooting gel/powder and a rooting medium (compost will do), and a healthy donor ('mother') plant to work from. using a propagation unit will also give better results (perhaps better still if it's heated). 'cloning' plants in this fashion is actually very easy to do - my mum's a keen gardener and she does it with all kinds of plants all the time (one poster here claims to have cloned a plant at age 6 - and i have no reason to doubt that at all!!).
cloning is the primary method used to produce lots of (genetically) identical baby plants for use in commercial growing of all kinds (including, afaiu, in the illegal production of marijuana)
personally, i don't think this is particularly newsworthy, even if they are doing this with one of the oldest plant species in the world.
for the movie, starring Jeff Goldblum and Sam Neill
Also, it so happens to be a great food source for pandas. Lucky for the Lomatia Tasmanica they don't live near them.
Why would we need another Bob Dole?
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
Actually the oldest organism brought back to life but not cloned was 45 million year old yeast fossilized in amber as per this story from Wired
Some of them have done so for much longer than this plant, eg Bdelloid rotifers. Smaller organisms, eg bacteria do not reproduce sexually, although through conjugation they can swap genes with other bacteria so you might say that it is not the same thing as it was before.
Just because the fungus is not native to the habitat doesn't mean it got there by man. Organisms move all over the planet all by themselves.
Isn’n “saving” a naturally dying species just as wrong as killing a naturally surviving one?
Oh, and if you want to get really deep: Aren’t our actions just as much part of nature, and doesn’t this mean, that what we do or don’t do, can by definition not be against nature?
(If we’re accepting this view, then how do we determine “The Right Thing”(TM), and why would there even be such a concept in nature? For what goal, if not for the benefit of the growth of the bio-mass that we call ourselves?)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Exactly what is cloning? I've heard of people cloning plants, but i think thats when they cut off a stem with leaves to regrow it. Is that what they are talking about?
-M
lest we forget, they also died from disease. all of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Aborigines
my friend you are gonna be a tumblin' down toward that hellfire before ya even know it.
you won't be the first kentucky-fried slashdotter, thats fer sure.
I think we can reasonably take "natural" as shorthand for "not influenced by humans". We might have some competition for most disruptive force to ever appear on this planet (e.g. the first oxygen-exhaling organisms), but we're definitely the worst to appear in eons, and we're unique in that we're the first thing to appear that has a fair chance of killing off all life on the planet. Basically what I'm saying is: come on, be reasonable. Of course humans are an abnormal influence on the planet.
C'mon, you can admit it. I am not the only one in this crowd who initially read the headline as Scientists Clone Oldest Living Orgasm.
The Idiocracy is the natural order of things.
It's natural for species to become extinct over time, and gradually becoming too stupid seems to be our exit strategy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think he meant 'religious' scientists, referring to the idea that consensus makes reality. (See also: ManMadeGlobalWarming(TM) where, whether it gets colder or hotter, it's happening because of global warming.
Ouch. Have you heard reports that the poles are getting warmer? That's the most significant effect of global warming, and it is quickly bringing up the average global temperature.
Heck, if "global warming" really picks up and messes with the jet stream, you would expect the United Kingdom to become as barren as Siberia and Canada, which are at the same latitudes. Even still, the global average would be higher than it is now. That's right: the UK is warm now, because the Arctic is cold. If the Arctic stops being so cold, the UK will stop being warm. That mechanism is understood very well.
And CO2 is the only cause, never the sun, the only real source of heat in our solar system.)
The sun's output hasn't varied sufficiently to cause an increase in temperatures. Moreover, the Sun's output couldn't possibly cause significant increases in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures (which is what is happening), without frying everybody at the equator. Remember how the Earth is a spheroid, and the poles are cold because they're furthest from direct sunlight?
never the sun, the only real source of heat in our solar system
That's simply false. Europa is being heated by the tidal forces due to Jupiter. Our planet's magnetic field is caused by convection currents causing a dynamo effect. The most likely cause of the heating to cause the convection currents is radioactive decay within Earth's core.
I want to EAT the ancient plant! NOM NOM NOM...
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The environmentalists claim that human beings are destroying the planet. Everything is a part of nature except for human beings and our technology and what we invent.
Evolution says we are a part of nature and have evolved to become the most dominate form of life on the planet. But environmentalists ignore that part and claim we are not natural and not animals (ignoring that human beings are mammals) and that our works are destroying the planet.
Meanwhile natural wild fires destroy forests showing that nature is just as destructive as human beings, also hurricanes, tsunamis, earth quakes, floods, droughts, all of which are not human made but just as destructive as human beings are claimed to be.
Human beings are a part of nature, we are animals like all of the rest, but more evolved, but our basic instincts still guide us, as well as our ID and Ego, and our quest for more material things. Our destruction of the environment is a part of nature, as we are a part of nature itself. We just haven't evolved to the point that we have learned to preserve nature and change our technology, science, and activities to stop destroying the environment. But nature pushes back, as it has always done against life on the planet, and survival becomes one of adapting to change and learning from one's mistakes. No other animal on the planet besides human beings can adapt to change and learn from their mistakes as well as human beings can, but we destroy ourselves in war, politics, economics, and we poison our bodies with alcohol, illicit drugs, legal drugs, sexual diseases, and chemicals in drinking water, genetically engineered food (lowers our metabolism and makes most of us fat, causes some to develop food allergies) , and lack of exercise as machines do the work for us.
Have we really advanced that much, or have we taken steps backward and almost doomed us all?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
So the cloned something that only reproduces by being cloned. Umm... am I missing something here?
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
"which seems to load slowly in the US"
(A) Australia (and its island state Tasmania) lie on the other side of the largest body of water on the planet - the Pacific Ocean. Bottlenecks occur, but Americans notice it less than Australians do, because Australians visit US websites (cough cough Google) far more often than Americans visit Australian websites.
(B) Tasmania lies across another body of water from the Australian mainland - Bass Strait (Bass rhymes with ass). Although narrow, the Bass Strait is a bottleneck for communications between Tasmania and the mainland.
Conclusion: this webpage has to pass through two bottlenecks to get to Americans. Conversely, for Tasmanians trying to access American websites (like Google for instance) the web sucks.
So before you complain about this page loading slowly, think of those poor devils in Tasmania.
I am anarch of all I survey.
GP has a point. Most large organisms reproduce sexually for this very reason. The few that don't are relics living on isolated islands. Asexual reproduction makes organisms extremely vulnerable to pathogens, so most of them have already gone extinct. Many species can choose whether to reproduce sexually or asexually; they almost always choose sex when available because it gives so many advantages to their offspring.
How his post was flamebait I have yet to figure out.
I think we can reasonably take "natural" as shorthand for "not influenced by humans".
How can that be reasonable when it is an absolutely false dichotomy?
People make the same error when it comes to "natural herbal supplements" vs. "drugs". (Chemicals are chemicals, no matter how they're created. If a compound has an effect on the human body, it can be toxic. Google "water intoxication". Anything "completely safe" is worthless, medically.) The actions of humans are no less "natural" than ants building a colony or beavers building a dam. We just happen to have the intelligence and opposable thumbs to manufacture more sophisticated materials.
We might have some competition for most disruptive force to ever appear on this planet (e.g. the first oxygen-exhaling organisms), but we're definitely the worst to appear in eons, and we're unique in that we're the first thing to appear that has a fair chance of killing off all life on the planet.
"Killing all life on the planet" ain't as easy as it looks. Even if we did our absolute worst and nuked each other all to Hell, while simultaneously letting global warming run amok, there would still be room, at the very least, for extremophiles.
Note: I'm not saying that's a good idea. I'm simply saying that one facet of human arrogance is the idea that we have the power to kill all life on the planet. We don't. You'd be almost as accurate if you said we had the power to destroy all life in the universe.
Basically what I'm saying is: come on, be reasonable. Of course humans are an abnormal influence on the planet.
Basically, you're incorrect.
Slashdot "editor" kdawson has yet again posted a story from/about his beloved Australia. That's why he is here: to promote Australia. Had this been an article about old-plant cloning in, say, Hungary or Bermuda, it would not have made the front page of Slashdot.
One species of jellyfish, Turritopsis nutricula, reverts to a sexually immature stage after reproducing, rather than dying as in other jellyfish. Consequently the species has no maximum lifespan.
Even if we did our absolute worst and nuked each other all to Hell, while simultaneously letting global warming run amok
Fry - "It's a good thing global warming never happened"
Leela - "It did. But it's a good thing nuclear winter cancelled it out"
This problem isn't new to Tasmanian shrubs: banana plants are propagated by cuttings (ie cloned), and the "Gros Michel" variety was wiped out 100 years ago by a fungus, because they were all genetically identical. They were eventually replaced by the "Cavendish" variety, which is now being wiped out by a new fungus. The same problem plagues apples: apple trees grown from seed usually produce sour-tasting crab apples, which are only good for making cider (that's why Johnny Appleseed planted them, to make alcohol). Occasionally an apple tree results which yields sweet apples, and such trees are henceforth replicated exclusively through cuttings. Such clones don't change with the evolutionary times, and hence require huge quantities of fungicides and insecticides to yield worm-free apples.
Cloning a threatened species just postpones the inevitable.
There's a story about an old man, who never took any drugs, because they "weren't natural".
His doctor noticed that he was on Lithium, a powerful anti-depressant.
A previous doctor had proscribed it, but it was OK, because it was a "salt".
It's fairly clear that we're the cause of an extreme extinction event (see Holocene Extinction event), and while it might not be the worst (which goes to the Permian-Triassic event), it is certainly dramatic and might win in terms of rate (number of species disappearing per year). So, yes, humans are an abnormal influence on the planet, and in this context (introducing exospecies into a fragile environment), it's certainly relevant to separate the human influence from the norm (say, the previous hundred million years of evolution). Although Australia is probably a strange case, since we've screwed it up repeatedly in our various waves of invasion and re-invasion.
As for extremophiles, yeah, we probably can't kill all life on the planet. That's why I said "has a fair chance".
It's fairly clear that we're the cause of an extreme extinction event (see Holocene Extinction event), and while it might not be the worst (which goes to the Permian-Triassic event), it is certainly dramatic and might win in terms of rate (number of species disappearing per year).
Granted, it's just Wikipedia, but the article you cite above demonstrates, better than anything else, that scientists currently have not the foggiest notion of the impact we're having on the planet's biosphere. Early in the article, we read this:
If this wasn't such a serious topic, the passage above would make me laugh my proverbial ass off. Not only have the "scientists" referenced abandoned the idea of documentation (a.k.a., "data"), but they've settled on a range of species extinctions with a 10,000% margin of error. If that's the best they can do with the data, you can't fault them for telling the truth, but it's hardly anything to hang your hat on, in terms of a theory.
Wikipedia has a broader article on major extinction events, and the Holocene event doesn't even rate as "major". (It's listed in the "minor" event list.) The accompanying graph seems to bear that out (at least for marine life).
So, yes, humans are an abnormal influence on the planet, and in this context (introducing exospecies into a fragile environment), it's certainly relevant to separate the human influence from the norm (say, the previous hundred million years of evolution).
You're clearly missing the point. The question isn't whether human beings caused more extinctions than any other single species (or any other event, for that matter). Even if you blindly assume that that's true, that has nothing to do with whether or not human activity is "natural" or not. Human behavior has evolved the same way the species of any other species has evolved. We have needs for resources just like any other species does. Human activity, then, is no more "unnatural" than any other species' activity (the aforementioned ants or beavers, for example).
As for extremophiles, yeah, we probably can't kill all life on the planet. That's why I said "has a fair chance".
There's not a "fair" chance. Barring some planet-exploding technology (i.e., the planet goes "BOOM!!" in a Death Star-like explosion), it's not going to happen. There are plenty of things that do have a "fair chance" of destroying all life on Earth (e.g., a Moon-sized body crashing into Earth), and there are a lot of scenarios that would lead to no one posting on Slashdot for the next few billion years, but generally, the idea that we could destroy all life on Earth (or come remotely close to it) is nonsense. Sane environmentalism is focused on keeping it a habitable place for humans, and not breaking out the rosary beads every time another species of rat goes extinct. (Sorry. That last reference was my Catholic high school days coming back. *shudder*)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomatia_tasmanica: ...reproduction occurs only vegetatively: when a branch falls, that branch grows new roots, establishing a new plant that is genetically identical to its parent.
Why didn't they just stick some branches in pots of soil?
http://api.ning.com/files/4k4zHJXi41vmn0z0wrNIo*fW47HkwK796c6dCV55TG78mdyHTw646RGSXLmY56-gLiqvxDkgjp40Z*aEvnZCkssaYS7OBpNz/keithrichards.jpg